The College Republicans of America (CRA) designated the Boston College Republicans as an “unwelcome organization” and revoked their charter Monday, following nationwide pushback over the group’s decision to distance itself from a conservative speaker it hosted last week.
“Effective immediately, Boston College ‘Republicans’ has been designated an Unwelcome Organization under 2.03 of our Bylaws and their charter revoked,” the CRA wrote in an X post. “We hold chapters to a high standard. Jake Wiepert and his board showed tremendous disrespect to our friend.”
While the CRA lists BC Republicans as a registered chapter, the student group said the CRA has no authority over its operations.
“Boston College Republicans is self-managing and does not currently receive funding from College Republicans of America,” the BC Republicans executive board wrote to The Heights. “We are unaffected by this decision and will continue to run our club outside of their purview.”
After the BC Republicans disavowed politically incendiary remarks Nick Solheim made on campus last week, many prominent right-wing figures took to X to express their anger at the group’s decision.
“This is insane,” wrote Congressman Riley Moore (R-WV) in an X post. “The BC College ‘Republicans’ move is pure cowardice. @NickSSolheim is a great American patriot! He is doing great work leading @americanmoment as it helps build the America First movement – a movement that will actually win because we don’t do cowardly things like this.”
Solheim said his speech is a product of the current political climate.
“It was a speech addressing the inflammatory times we live in,” Solheim wrote to The Heights. “Charlie Kirk was murdered less than 50 days ago. Anyone who doesn’t understand the implications of that doesn’t understand what time it is.”
Solheim said that it is this political climate that pressured BC Republicans to release a statement disavowing his speech.
“I think it was a decision driven by fear—of the Boston College administration, of their peers, of the broader political ecosystem, and so on,” Solheim wrote.
Among the most prominent voices to weigh in was Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation—the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, a policy platform seeking to roll back LGBTQ+ protections and restrict abortion access.
“The future won’t belong to soft men chasing comfort,” Roberts wrote Saturday evening on X. “It will belong to those who risk safety to defend their homeland, their families, and their faith. @NickSSolheim is right, and he’s a patriot for saying so.”
Nine minutes after Roberts’ post, William Branson Donahue, CRA’s founder and chairman, called on Jake Wiepert, MCAS ’27, to resign or face disaffiliation.
“Cowardice and disloyalty will not be tolerated,” he wrote on X. “If the Boston College ‘Republican’ President doesn’t resign, CRA will disaffiliate. It would be a shame to lose a flagship chapter, but it’s been taken over by the opposition. The members need to remove Jake Wiepert. Now.”
After Wiepert did not resign—and BC Republicans hosted Democratic Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D–Mass.) on Thursday—Donahue announced that CRA had formally dismissed the organization, writing, “We don’t house traitors in our ranks.”
The CRA is a super PAC registered in California. During the 2023–24 fiscal year, it reported spending more than $53,000 on advertising and donated $42,600 to Donald Trump.
Under Section 2.03 of the CRA’s bylaws, the organization may revoke recognition of any chapter whose activities contradict “Republican philosophy and principles.”
Instead of directing the blame for the outcome of the situation toward BC Republicans, Solheim holds BC’s campus climate accountable for the club’s decision.
“If I have brought material consequences to the students responsible for bringing me—I lament it—but let’s lay the blame at the feet of those responsible: an inflexible administration and student body that has forsaken its duty to challenge one another with passionate exchange of thoughts, reason, and ideas,” Solheim wrote.
While Solheim emphasized the importance of free speech in his email to The Heights, his speech last week sent a different message.
“No, we’re not having tidy debate in the so-called ‘marketplace of ideas,” Solheim said.
This lack of space for a “marketplace of ideas” is exactly the rhetoric the BC Republicans denounced in their statement about Solheim’s speech.
“We do not agree with Mr. Solheim that this is not a time to engage in the ‘marketplace of ideas,’” the BC Republicans executive board wrote. “We uphold the notion of civil discourse and believe that there is always a time for respectful discussion, even with those who do not agree with us.”
BC Eagle • Oct 30, 2025 at 1:41 pm
BC Republicans did the right thing calling out his violent rhetoric. Pretty sad, but not surprising, that the CRA is punishing them for not falling in line. Seems like they’re probably better off without them. Who would want to be associated with the party that’s ruining this country anyway?
(Former) BC Fanatic • Nov 3, 2025 at 4:16 pm
“Violent rhetoric”? Do you mean like calling an entire party that disagrees with you “Nazis” and calling the democratically elected President “Hitler”, even after 2 attempts on his life? How about assassinating a father of 2 young kids simply for having different beliefs? The violence is one-sided. Don’t let other people gaslight you, it’s exactly as it seems: the Democrats play dirty and then kick and scream when anyone on the right dares to challenge them.
Yuriy Bane • Oct 29, 2025 at 10:37 am
As a conservative student who actually attended the Solheim event, I think it’s important to be clear about what really happened. Yes, Solheim’s rhetoric was excessive—speaking about being “willing to die” and dismissing the “marketplace of ideas” as unfitting in the current political climate isn’t how serious conservatives should or actually do make their case. That’s why the Boston College Republicans were right (and should be applauded) in their decision to disavow Solheim’s remarks. But the College Republicans of America’s reaction—revoking our charter and branding us “traitors”—was just as absurd.
What’s striking to me is the double standard. When the Left suppresses speech, it’s applauded as “activism” or “defending democracy.” But when conservatives show the maturity and responsibility to police our own excesses, we’re attacked as disloyal. Apparently, ideological conformity is celebrated only when it’s enforced by progressives. The truth is that healthy movements debate their principles in public; unhealthy ones demand obedience.
What’s happening here isn’t hypocrisy from BC Republicans—it’s proof that we still believe in moral judgment and independent thought. The Left enforces ideological conformity; we debate openly, even when it’s messy. That’s what free speech actually looks like.
Erm actually • Oct 29, 2025 at 1:55 pm
You say that “when conservatives show the maturity and responsibility to police our own excesses, we’re attacked as disloyal.” I would encourage you to think about who is attacking you. It is certainly not the left, who would rather BC Republicans never bring on an unregistered speaker with fundamentalist beliefs that harm minority students. It is the right, your fellow conservatives who are attacking BC Republicans for not being extreme enough. To take this incident, which has nothing to do with whoever you deem to be leftists or progressives (and there is a difference) and spin it into a rant against the left is intellectually dishonest. This is about the right and the insatiable power lust of the extreme right. The left did not denounce BC Republicans; the left is not concerned with BC Republicans. Your own Republicans in power denounced you. Furthermore, fear mongering about the oppressive power of the left does your already weak argument no good. The left is not in power; in fact the right is in power, so when will you stop claiming to be the victims in a system of your own side’s design?
Yuriy Bane • Oct 29, 2025 at 3:04 pm
I appreciate your response, but you’re missing my point. I never claimed that the Left directly attacked BC Republicans over this incident. My argument is much broader: that ideological conformity — whether enforced by progressives or by factions on the Right — leads to the same outcome: groupthink and intellectual decay.
The CRA’s overreaction proves that no side is immune to this. But it’s worth noting that the broader political and cultural environment is coming to be more and more shaped by the Left’s dominance in academia, the media, and the bureaucracy. That culture of intolerance toward dissent creates the atmosphere where even now, conservatives are beginning to police themselves out of fear of being “unacceptable.”
So yes, this is primarily a conflict within the Right — but it reflects a larger dynamic where disagreement is treated as betrayal of the party line. Conservatives should be mature enough to recognize and resist that instinct, not mirror the cancel culture we criticize.
If we can’t hold our own side to a higher standard of discipline and intellectual honesty, then what exactly distinguishes us from the movement we claim to oppose?
Iman • Oct 29, 2025 at 8:29 am
What we are witnessing is nothing short of absurd political theater. Conservatives parade themselves as the guardians of “free speech,” yet here they are revoking charters, demanding resignations, and branding students as “traitors” for doing the very thing free speech is supposed to protect: disagreeing. Nothing about this adds up.
Nick Solheim can deliver a speech glorifying “martyrdom” and mocking the “marketplace of ideas,” (which is absolutely repulsive and disgusting) and the moment BC Republicans push back—even mildly—they’re excommunicated by their own national organization. Think about that. The loudest defenders of free expression are punishing college students for expressing themselves and correcting their own mistakes!
This is the insanity of the moment: a conservative movement that claims to fight authoritarianism while enforcing absolute loyalty oaths within its own ranks. A Heritage Foundation president calling young students “soft men” for choosing civil discourse over blood-soaked rhetoric. A super PAC pretending to be a student club while spending tens of thousands on political ads, then torching its own “chapter” for refusing to bow down.
If this is what the so-called “defenders of free speech” look like in practice, then the mask has slipped. What they’re offering isn’t pluralism, it’s propaganda—messaging so fragile it can’t withstand even the smallest critique from their own side.
Yuriy Bane • Oct 29, 2025 at 10:27 am
Iman, your outrage would carry more weight if it weren’t so predictably one-sided. I’ll give you one thing — you’re right that the College Republicans of America made a mistake by revoking Boston College’s charter. But that’s not what I have a problem with.
I think your outlook is deceptively selective and rigid. My point is simple: let’s not pretend the Left has any standing or moral authority (if they even believe any more in any kind of higher moral order) to lecture conservatives about free speech or “pluralism.” On this campus and others across the country, it’s predominantly the Left that shouts down speakers (sometimes literally), demands “trigger warnings” for ideas it dislikes, provides “safe spaces” for intellectually fragile students, pressures administrations to silence dissent, dictates what can and cannot be said, polices dissenting views, and punishes anyone who steps an inch outside its orthodoxy. That, I think, is what distinguishes liberals from conservatives. Conservatives aren’t afraid to disagree publicly; progressives can only purge quietly.
The irony is that your entire critique depends on standards the Left never applies to itself. When progressive groups silence speakers, disrupt events, or harass conservative students, it’s excused as “activism”—sometimes even celebrated as “fighting fascism” or defending “our democracy.” But when conservatives debate among themselves—for example, when one faction calls out another for crossing a line—it suddenly becomes “authoritarianism.” That’s hypocrisy, not analysis.
You call this “absurd political theater.” Maybe. But at least conservatism still allows for healthy debate. When the Right debates about the boundaries of speech or simply calls out bombastic political speech, it’s not hypocrisy—it’s self-correction. On the Left, however, all disagreement is treated as heresy. You don’t see this kind of infighting among progressives because either everyone falls in line or gets canceled by the party bosses.
I also want to say again that, yes, Solheim’s rhetoric was overblown, and the BC Republicans were right to disavow it. But my point is that internal disagreement isn’t proof of tyranny—it’s proof that conservatism still tolerates independent thought. The Left, by contrast, resolves its divisions through enforced conformity. The Left, in fact, enforces ideological conformity so ruthlessly that dissent never surfaces–when is the last time you heard of a pro-life Democrat? Conservatives should be better than that. So, I’ll say it again: you don’t see these public catfights among progressives because disagreement in the Democratic Party is automatically career-ending. The conservative movement’s strength, on the other hand, lies in open debate among people who actually think for themselves—not in obedience to self-appointed gatekeepers.
So no, Iman, the “mask” hasn’t slipped. Conservatives are struggling, publicly and imperfectly, to define our movement’s moral boundaries. That’s what free discourse actually looks like. The Left could learn from it—if it hasn’t already silenced everyone who dares to think differently.
Declan • Oct 29, 2025 at 11:38 am
“Disagreement in the Democratic party is career ending”
My God, you are an idiot. Yeah, totally, Yuriy. Democrats get ousted from their positions all the time for not toeing the party line. You’re definitely basing that on real life and not your own delusions.
Iman • Oct 29, 2025 at 1:14 pm
The difficulty in his arguments is that rather than focus on the subject matter, it becomes a radical victimization process with with bar for bar slogans that devolve into a left vs right war that he creates!
Iman • Oct 29, 2025 at 1:11 pm
Yuriy, hello! How are you? Shall we…?
You keep insisting my critique is “one-sided,” but the only way you can make that claim stick is by rewriting what actually happened. Let’s set the record straight.
You admitted yourself that Solheim’s speech was “overly bombastic and dramatic” and that his “hyperbolic delivery and dire warnings felt excessive and counterproductive.” That’s the exact critique I made. Yet when I say it, suddenly it becomes “fragility” and “moral grandstanding.” You don’t get to congratulate yourself for noticing excess while ridiculing anyone else who says the same thing. Textbook victimhood. Everyone can see it, it’s becoming embarrassing.
You also say conservatives don’t purge, that they tolerate disagreement better than anyone else. But the College Republicans of America revoked BC Republicans’ charter, branded them “traitors,” and demanded their president resign—all because they affirmed civil discourse. That is punishment for independence, not tolerance of it. Calling it a “mistake” doesn’t change the substance: a conservative organization silenced their own students for showing judgment.
And since you’re so obsessed with the “fragility” of others (which is quite revealing), let’s be honest: nothing in your replies shows strength. Every time someone outside your circle repeats the same critique you already admitted, you panic and call it “grandstanding” or “censorship.” Every consequence your own side hands down suddenly becomes proof of conservative virtue. Every disagreement is reframed as persecution. Your other comment to this article is a great example of that! This isn’t toughness Yuriy, but I will tell you what it is: insecurity wrapped in slogans. The more you rail against “fragility,” the clearer it becomes you’re describing yourself.
And no one here is saying the Left is perfect, I’m certainly not. That’s the fake tension you keep inventing, as if pointing out hypocrisy on the Right automatically means giving the Left a free pass. It doesn’t. Two things can be true at once: the Left has its own problems with speech, and the Right’s response in this case was blatant hypocrisy. Pretending it has to be one or the other is just a way of dodging accountability.
So no, this wasn’t “healthy debate.” It simply was a loyalty test. National figures punished students for stepping out of line, even when they were defending the very values conservatives claim to uphold. If you want to call that strength, fine—but don’t confuse obedience with free speech.
…Yuriy, at the end of the day I don’t doubt your sincerity. I just think you’re caught in a pattern of defending contradictions that don’t hold up. That said, I’d rather see people at BC—even those I disagree with—argue openly than hide behind slogans. If nothing else, this exchange shows we’re not afraid to engage, and that’s still worth something.
Best,
Iman
Yuriy Bane • Oct 29, 2025 at 2:54 pm
Iman–
Thanks for the thoughtful reply—I’m doing well, hope you are too. I genuinely appreciate the civil tone and the willingness to engage (that is, on an actual intellectual basis); it’s refreshing that some don’t immediately resort to slogans, shutdowns, or sanctimony when challenged. You raised some interesting points, and so I think there are still key differences worth unpacking.
First, regarding Solheim’s speech: You’re right that I called it “overly bombastic and dramatic,” and I stand by that, regardless of other people’s opinions on that. It was hyperbolic, and the BC Republicans were right to disavow it. Where we differ, I think, isn’t in recognizing that excess—it’s in how we interpret the resulting fallout. It seems that you see the CRA’s revocation as a kind of punishment for BCR’s independent stance, as silencing dissent. I regard it more as a regrettable overreaction within a movement that is still defining its principles, though not tantamount to outright censorship. The CRA isn’t a government or university administration shutting down speech; it’s a private organization deciding who it affiliates with based on its own bylaws. Misguided? Absolutely, as I said before. This, however, is not the same as deplatforming or shouting down speakers, which happens far more often from the Left on college campuses (e.g., Riley Gaines faced physical assault by protesters at San Francisco State University in 2023 following her speech, and was disrupted at an Oregon college earlier this year, leading to five arrests. Similarly, Kyle Rittenhouse was booed off stage at the University of Memphis in 2024, with protesters preventing him from completing his talk.) The CRA’s action is problematic, but it concerns affiliation rather than outright prevention of expression, making the situations not directly comparable.
On “purging” and tolerance: I don’t claim conservatives are perfect. The CRA’s decision was heavy-handed and counterproductive, demanding resignation over a simple disagreement. That’s not a good look, and it does risk alienating a lot of young conservatives who value nuance. However, such internal conflict is so public and contentious precisely because conservatism as a movement is not ideologically rigid. Factions often clash openly (e.g., Establishment Republicans vs. MAGA; libertarians vs. social conservatives; fiscal hawks vs. populist spenders; foreign policy hawks vs. America First isolationists; etc.) While these intra-party divisions can result in poor decisions, such as the CRA’s here, they demonstrate a capacity for self-correction through open discourse.
Progressives, on the other hand, often enforce conformity more effectively, though less visibly. Think of how quickly RFK Jr. was sidelined in the 2024 Democratic primaries for his views on vaccines; Tulsi Gabbard was forced to leave the party, citing an “elitist cabal” after foreign policy clashes; and Senator Joe Manchin became an independent after opposing party positions on issues like the filibuster. This suggests a form of pluralism where agreement is expected, or consequences follow. You say two things can be true at once, and I agree: The Right has hypocrisy here, but so does the Left, and your original comment focused almost exclusively on the former while ignoring the latter. That’s what made it feel one-sided to me.
As for “fragility”: I get why you’d read my pushback that way, but I’m not trying to play the victim card—I’m just calling out what I see as selective outrage. If pointing out inconsistencies is “insecurity,” then we’re both guilty of it in this exchange! My goal isn’t to dodge accountability; it’s to broaden the lens. If we’re critiquing the Right’s free speech record (fairly!), we should apply the same scrutiny to the Left’s track record, especially on college campuses where progressive orthodoxy dominates.
At the end of the day, you’re spot on that open and free discourse is worth its weight—it’s why I’m responding. Events like this highlight how heated things are (especially post-Kirk’s murder, which Solheim referenced poorly), but they also show that debate can still happen without total breakdown. BC could use more of that.
A • Oct 30, 2025 at 1:49 pm
Your examples of people being “shouted down” are so absurd. Riley Gaines and Kyle Rittenhouse are terrible people grifting to grab as much cash as possible from righties like you. I could say the same thing about the politicians you cited – they do not see financial success in associating with the Democratic party, so they moved to the Republican party where they know they have rich backers and can hold power as long as possible.
By the way, free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. A right-wing grifter getting booed at a speech while they spew their bullshit to everyone doesn’t mean they’re being oppressed.
goodbyebcreps • Oct 29, 2025 at 8:07 am
LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Yuriy Bane • Oct 29, 2025 at 10:43 am
Disrespectful and sophomoric: glad you found something to laugh about—I’m sure it’s easier than actually making a cogent argument.